Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

This term is considered to be grossly offensive by a large number of women. Probably by most women who have figured out what it means (or actually heard it used). To continue to insist on using it after this has been explained is even more grossly offensive. Not born with external genitalia which were recognised as female, and raised as a girl? Not a woman.

Find other words for people who are otherwise described, and don't erase our identity by appropriating our actual name.

Would you continue to use a derogatory term for an ethnic group after it had been explained to you that many members of that group considered it to be extremely offensive? No? Then stoppit.

Cis woman is a perfectly valid term, no matter how trans-excluding feminists want to twist the language in order to use old tactics of being the victimized, marginalized group against a group that they are currently victimizing and marginalizing.

I do in fact use terms for ethnic groups that many members claim they consider grossly offensive; black and African American. Most however, don't. This is the OVERWHELMING case with cis woman as well.

This is a basic fact that every TERF and other trans-excluding 'woman's' group fails to integrate; you do not own womanhood. You do not speak for womanhood. It is not a weapon you can swing against the other. This fear isn't of losing 'what they've worked for', it's for losing control and power. It's the sad hanging on to power that was fought for at first for noble goals, but power does what power does. 'Erase your identity' only works if one believes the markedly unfeminist idea that what is between your legs defines you as a person. What are you afraid of losing? From you last article, it looks like you want to reject women from being given shelter from violence because they're trans women, even though trans women are at greater risk of violence than cis women. How very kind of you.

Be grossly offended. Being offended doesn't make you right. I'll continue to offend you just like I continue to grossly offend radical Christians by denying a belief in any god, just like I'll grossly offend Trump supporters by opposing his harms, just like I'll grossly offend anti-vaxers with scientific facts.

__________________Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

Look at it this way. Let's look at once common but slightly older and archiac term that has mostly fallen out of use... crossdresser. A crossdresser was (is, I'm sure the subculture still exists in some context) a person who preferred to wear the clothing of the other gender.

See the problem? For that concept to have any meaning at all you have to agree that men and women are required by some level; social, legal, whatever to wear different clothing. If you don't, if you think men should be able to wear skirts and women to wear to wear pants and so forth... the concept stops being meaningful.

Very good point. And that may in fact be the reason why you don't hear much about crossdressers in today's debates. You don't see any crossdresser cultural groups intervening in the current discussion. It's kinda out of fashion culturally. That was back then, when there was no debate about the existence of two genders, so it made sense. But as you correctly point out, to validate crossdressing, you have to validate the fact that there are differences between how men and women dress.

The paradox still exists today, though, because transgender people do the same thing: They transform physically and dress like the opposite sex. So they're admitting that there's an opposite sex. Though there are also transgender people who are only transgender "in their soul" so to speak. While they look like their "original" sex, they claim to be the other one, because that's how they feel.

And that's all fine, by the way. Adults are free to do whatever they want. Just don't act like there aren't clear differences between males and females. Because if there were actually zero differences, then the whole concept of transgender and pretty much, the whole discussion, would be moot.

__________________"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

It has multiple usages. According to a quick google etymology search it means "across" in latin, which in astrological context apparently means "beyond". Makes sense to me. Even for gender it makes sense as "beyond sex" ie different than just one's sex.

cis IS a pointless modifier 99% of the time, because almost all discussions about men and women aren't about making such a distinction. Sometimes, the distinction is necessary and having a convenient, easy-to-understand (at least to anyone who took high school chemistry) label for this is ideal.

I just did it in a sentence from my last post.

"From you last article, it looks like you want to reject women from being given shelter from violence because they're trans women, even though trans women are at greater risk of violence than cis women."

It's much more clear than otherwise. The entire argument against its use isn't on language grounds really, it's all about denying that trans women are women.

__________________Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

Men are modified females. They were all females until testosterone was introduced and modified them.

Quote:

Not any more than "right-handed" is superfluous just becausae 90% of humans are right-handed. It just has a more limited use.

Handed means nothing. If you say "I am handed" no one knows what you are talking about. If you say "I am female" everyone knows. Everyone is born male or female and some spend a certain amount of time transitioning Modifying themselves) to the other gender so they are called transgender. In my opinion, once they get there they are just that gender and no longer trans. I can be on a trans-continental trip but once I get there the trip is over and I am just on the other side of the continent.

__________________"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."

Men are modified females. They were all females until testosterone was introduced and modified them.

Oh Jesus Christ...

And how and why exactly should that affect anything at all? In what possible real world, day to day context should that impact anything being discussing about sexual and gender roles and relationship in real life?

__________________"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

And how and why exactly should that affect anything at all? In what possible real world, day to day context should that impact anything being discussing about sexual and gender roles and relationship in real life?

Who said it affects anything? It is clarification of a point I made about labels that I was asked to give.

__________________"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."

Men are modified females. They were all females until testosterone was introduced and modified them.

What in the blue hell are you talking about? Children are not all females, and neither are foetuses at any point of their development. Children are already differentiated, and foetuses start halfway before a certain point.

Quote:

Handed means nothing. If you say "I am handed" no one knows what you are talking about. If you say "I am female" everyone knows.

I didn't say anything about "handed". How are you missing my point so utterly? The point is that if you want to refer to right-handed people specifically, we have a term for that even though most people are right-handed. The English language could very easily have not had any term for right-handed people but one for left-handed people, but having one for both is useful when you want to know which hand you favour. This isn't rocket science.

What in the blue hell are you talking about? Children are not all females, and neither are foetuses at any point of their development. Children are already differentiated, and foetuses start halfway before a certain point.

Looks like you're so late to the party on this topic, it's firing up again. LOL

For decades, females have been considered the “default” sex in mammals. The new research overturns that idea, showing that making female reproductive organs is an active process that involves dismantling a primitive male tissue called the Wolffian duct.

__________________The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell

Very good point. And that may in fact be the reason why you don't hear much about crossdressers in today's debates. You don't see any crossdresser cultural groups intervening in the current discussion. It's kinda out of fashion culturally. That was back then, when there was no debate about the existence of two genders, so it made sense. But as you correctly point out, to validate crossdressing, you have to validate the fact that there are differences between how men and women dress.

Depends on the group. Cross dressing as day to day activity would fit into gender queer / gender non conforming. Cross dressing as a sexual act isn't what anyone is talking about here except for Rolfe.

So it is certainly related to this whole issue but not in the way you are implying.

Very good point. And that may in fact be the reason why you don't hear much about crossdressers in today's debates. You don't see any crossdresser cultural groups intervening in the current discussion. It's kinda out of fashion culturally. That was back then, when there was no debate about the existence of two genders, so it made sense. But as you correctly point out, to validate crossdressing, you have to validate the fact that there are differences between how men and women dress.

The paradox still exists today, though, because transgender people do the same thing: They transform physically and dress like the opposite sex. So they're admitting that there's an opposite sex. Though there are also transgender people who are only transgender "in their soul" so to speak. While they look like their "original" sex, they claim to be the other one, because that's how they feel.

And that's all fine, by the way. Adults are free to do whatever they want. Just don't act like there aren't clear differences between males and females. Because if there were actually zero differences, then the whole concept of transgender and pretty much, the whole discussion, would be moot.

"Transvestite" is Latin for cross-dresser (more or less). I wonder why the shift occurred?

I have vague memories of people on daytime TV during the early 90's claiming that their crossdressing was more than some fun, kinky thing, and there was a "woman trapped in a man's body" aspect going on.

It would be interesting to see when and where gender was substituted for dressing, and originally why.

__________________The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell

"Transvestite" is Latin for cross-dresser (more or less). I wonder why the shift occurred?

I have vague memories of people on daytime TV during the early 90's claiming that their crossdressing was more than some fun, kinky thing, and there was a "woman trapped in a man's body" aspect going on.

It would be interesting to see when and where gender was substituted for dressing, and originally why.

It is because clothing is highly gendered, so the clothes one wears is an expression of gender. More commonly such individuals would be gender queer or gender non conforming in more modern terminology except when it is a sexual fetish.

Of course the lowering of the stigma on being transgender and so more people are transitioning in their entire lives instead of only part of it.

If you're a "Man trapped in a woman's body" you have, by definition, think there are meaningful non-biological differences between men and women are the whole thing is a distinction without difference and those always, always have ulterior motives.

Every time we have this discussion I ask, beg, plead somebody, anybody to answer this question and they never do.

Unless you place external standards on what men and women are and can do outside of their biological difference the statement that "A Woman trapped in a Man's Body" is in any way meaningfully distinct from "A Man" makes no sense.

What is the difference? A real, meaningful difference. What should a "Man trapped in a Woman's body" be able to do that "A Man" can't?

When I met a biological male and he tells me "I'm a man trapped in a woman's body" what do I do differently? What do I say or do differently? What am I required to acknowledge or change?

I already don't treat men and women differently on the scale and in the context we're discussing which I distinctly being told that was the thing I had to do at one point in the not too distant past and now I'm supposed to... I honestly don't know.

What is the difference? Somebody give a straight answer that doesn't boil down to "It's different because they say it is different."

Because not to long ago I thought all those non-biological differences that a society put on men and women were bad things that we were trying to make go away and I wake up one morning and they've all been put back in just so people feel special and unique about subverting them.

The dynamic being created can't be "Men and women should be treated equally... except when they identify as the other gender and then they must be treated under the old standards of gender roles, just reversed."

Standards can't be evil when nominally applied but celebrated when reversed. That's not how reality works.

__________________"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

I'm thinking how "woman" is defined depends (or should depend) on context.

Thing is, we can usually tell really easily who's a woman. It's the edge cases that are problematic, but they don't necessarily require a change in definitions.

However, the reason we can tell at a glance is that we're looking at a number of characteristics and our brains do the calculations. If the definition is, say, XX chromosomes, it might not translate well into what we see directly.

Because not to long ago I thought all those non-biological differences that a society put on men and women were bad things that we were trying to make go away and I wake up one morning and they've all been put back in just so people feel special and unique about subverting them.

The dynamic being created can't be "Men and women should be treated equally... except when they identify as the other gender and then they must be treated under the old standards of gender roles, just reversed."

Standards can't be evil when nominally applied but celebrated when reversed. That's not how reality works.

Maybe but of course a man who wears dresses and identifies as a man is different than a trans woman. If you are arguing we are at the time when being highly unique in your gender expression is not an issue, then frankly you are wrong. But that is still separate from gender identity.

Doesn't being trans amount to believing that you are something that you physically are not? I sympathize with those that do, its got to be brutal. But if I thought I was something I physically was not...say, a dolphin or a Windsor backed chair...would there be an inclusive socially and politically correct term like cisdolphin to differentiate?

Thing is, we can usually tell really easily who's a woman. It's the edge cases that are problematic, but they don't necessarily require a change in definitions.

However, the reason we can tell at a glance is that we're looking at a number of characteristics and our brains do the calculations. If the definition is, say, XX chromosomes, it might not translate well into what we see directly.

It's not really the edge cases that bother me - it's really stuff like women's sports, women's health, etc that legitimately does seem to be being "encroached upon" in destructive ways which has been flying under the radar to some extent, because most feminists of all orientations really, truly don't want to be bigots.

__________________The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell

Maybe but of course a man who wears dresses and identifies as a man is different than a trans woman. If you are arguing we are at the time when being highly unique in your gender expression is not an issue, then frankly you are wrong. But that is still separate from gender identity.

If the whole gender identify thing was being presented as some sort of... transitional phase, a thing for people do while waiting on gender roles to go away you might have a point but that's certainly not what we have.

Nothing in any version of the gender identify movement has it ever been presented in any context as "temporary."

__________________"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

Doesn't being trans amount to believing that you are something that you physically are not? I sympathize with those that do, its got to be brutal. But if I thought I was something I physically was not...say, a dolphin or a Windsor backed chair...would there be an inclusive socially and politically correct term like cisdolphin to differentiate?

Gender really does have a lot to do with what "social space" you occupy in the world. It's not as strict as it was 50 years ago, but it is still "a thing", for better or for worse. So, no, I definitely don't just see transgenderism as a delusion like thinking you're a dolphin.

__________________The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell

Doesn't being trans amount to believing that you are something that you physically are not? I sympathize with those that do, its got to be brutal. But if I thought I was something I physically was not...say, a dolphin or a Windsor backed chair...would there be an inclusive socially and politically correct term like cisdolphin to differentiate?

No. Trans people really do understand what their bodies are. But they also know what they feel their bodies should be. Their mental idea of this is my body does not match their physical one. This is not something that in general is treated with disdain when someone tries to get their body to fit their body image. Like those "unnecessary" breast reconstruction after mastectomy for women? Why bother with those fake unnatural breasts? Who are they trying to fool? Why do women who have cancer deserve tits but women who did not naturally grow them do not?

Gender really does have a lot to do with what "social space" you occupy in the world. It's not as strict as it was 50 years ago, but it is still "a thing", for better or for worse. So, no, I definitely don't just see transgenderism as a delusion like thinking you're a dolphin.

I'm not trying to be obtuse. Thinking you are a woman when you are physically a male is some sort of crossed wire. Yes, a dolphin is being hyperbolic, but all this talk of gender inclusivity seems to gloss over that. That's why I see the gender distinction as often really meaning sex; we don't have any evidence of being trapped in wrong bodies. Its a hardwiring problem regarding self identification.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.